11 views

Original Title: extracts on mathematical thinking

Uploaded by api-283635365

- National Viewpoint - Nikerson
- reflectionalg
- observation 3
- Stirring the Head, Heart and Soul
- fs4episode3a-161230011114.pdf
- 19
- curriclumtypes-110225065422-phpapp01-130901064106-phpapp01
- April
- chapter 1
- Nancy Sánchez Group 18
- TASK 1 (March 29)
- Primary Mathematics Teaching Theory and Practice
- atm8.pdf
- Curriculum development-part 1.doc
- telling my story
- module 6 chapter 1
- Kk _ Edu3083 Tesl 1 n 2
- Impact of Curriculum Evaluation
- cv-yasmin ibrahim
- Meaning o f Curriculum

You are on page 1of 17

Irit Peled

Barbara Clarke

Monash University

<ipeled@construct.ac.il>

Monash University

<barbara.clarke@education.monash.edu.au>

Doug Clarke

Peter Sullivan

Monash University

<peter.sullivan@education.monash.edu.au>

<doug.clarke@acu.edu.au>

This symposium presents results from one aspect of a project investigating the use of

particular types of tasks in mathematics classes. The first paper provides an overview of

the project, and the following three papers elaborate aspects of the three main task types

used as the basis of the project.

Paper 1: Helen OShea and Irit Peled, Monash University. The Task Types and

Mathematics Learning Research Project.

Paper 2: Barbara Clarke, Monash University. Using tasks involving models, tools and

representations: Insights from a middle years mathematics project.

Paper 3: Doug Clarke and Anne Roache, Australian Catholic University. Opportunities

and challenges for teachers and students provided by tasks built around real contexts.

Paper 4: Peter Sullivan, Monash University. Constraints and opportunities when using

content-specific open-ended tasks.

Helen O'Shea

Irit Peled

MonashUniversity

<helen.oshea@education.monash.edu.au>

Monash University

<ipeled@construct.ac.il>

This paper provides a theoretical background and rationale for a project that involves an

investigation of the power of different types of tasks. This background paper focuses on

the role of tasks in creating a learning environment and takes into account the effect of

the teacher in the process of task implementation. The Task Types and Mathematics

Learning (TTML) research project investigates how four types of mathematics tasks

contribute to mathematics learning in the middle years of schooling. Through

professional development and data collected through observation of teachers and

students, interviews, focus groups, and surveys, the project aims to describe the

features of successful exemplars of each type, constraints that might be experienced by

teachers, and teacher actions that can best support students learning.

This session introduces a project entitled Examining the relationship between the

documented curriculum, classroom tasks, and the learning of mathematics. We call it Task

Types and Mathematics Learning, or TTML, and our research is investigating the nature

and effect of using different types of mathematics tasks.

Our research is based on an assumption that choice of tasks, and the associated

pedagogies, are key aspects of teaching and learning mathematics (see e.g., Brousseau,

1997; Christiansen & Walther, 1986). We argue that what students learn is largely defined

by the tasks they are given. For example, we assume that tasks designed to prompt higherorder thinking are more likely to produce such thinking than tasks designed to offer skills

practice (see e.g., Doyle, 1998; Hiebert & Wearne, 1997). We agree with Ames (1992) and

Gee (2004) that tasks are more likely to be effective when students have meaningful reason

for engaging in the activity, when there is enough but not too much challenge, and that

variety is important.

Tasks are a central part of classroom activity, an outcome of the teachers choice

among different routes to achieve instructional goals. This choice of tasks reflects teacher

beliefs about instructional goals, while the way the tasks are formulated or modified

reflects teacher beliefs about learning and teaching (Kaiser, 2006).

As described in a processing model suggested by Stein, Grover, and Henningson

(1996), the implementation of the task is affected both by the teacher and by the students.

According to their differing beliefs and attitudes, teachers might implement the same task

in different ways. They might organise the class in different settings, and might lower the

level of challenge, especially in the case of high-level thinking. The students affect the task

by giving it interpretations that might be different from what the teacher intended and

which depend on many factors including classroom norms, and the childrens existing

knowledge and schemes.

An important characteristic of task implementation involves the balance between the

students own work and teacher intervention. Some of this balance depends on the teacher,

her beliefs and her teaching approach, and some depends on task characteristics. Boaler

(2003) shows that teachers with similar declarations about their attitude towards reform

might give students similar tasks, and yet what actually happens in their classes is

divergent. One teacher might be quick to provide students with hints about solving a given

2

problem, yet another teacher might allow more independent work while directing children

to search for support within their own mathematical knowledge, and a third teacher might

simply let the children wonder and give them no direction at all. Ainley and Pratt (2005)

demonstrate differing needs for teacher support in relation to a variety of task types.

Recent research calls on mathematics educators to give greater attention to promoting

childrens creativity by encouraging multiple solutions and a variety of strategies. This

would allow more focus to be given to open-ended tasks or tasks that encourage making

connections between topics, or the use of real-life contexts. For researchers such as Walls

(2005) open-ended tasks might enable a more democratic classroom environment instead

of the existing one where the teacher has an agenda and a sequence of tasks that lead to it

in a very controlled route. Thus, from several different perspectives, open-ended tasks are

fostered, expected to allow for student independent work, and viewed as having a good

potential to develop flexibility and reasoning skills.

The focus of this project is on the role of task characteristics rather than teacher

choices and task formulation. We focus on the opportunities task characteristics create for

student mathematical thinking, and on the diversity of performances exhibited. Although

we focus on the tasks, and have given teachers a set of already formulated tasks, it is still

inevitable that teacher beliefs and knowledge influence task implementation, and therefore

we take this into account in the analysis of task effects.

The TTML project focuses on the following four types of mathematical tasks:

Type 1: Teacher uses a model, example, or explanation that elaborates or exemplifies the

mathematics.

Type 2: Teacher situates mathematics within a contextualised practical problem to engage

the students but the motive is explicitly mathematics.

Type 3: Students investigate specific mathematical content through open-ended tasks.

Type 4: Interdisciplinary investigations.

Research Design

Our goals are to describe in detail how the tasks respectively contribute to mathematics

learning, the features of successful exemplars of each type, constraints that might be

experienced by teachers, and teacher actions that can best support students learning.

The model underlying the design and data collection in the project involves five sets of

variables: teachers knowledge; beliefs, attitudes and self-goals; situational and other

constraints; teachers intentions; and teacher actions and student learning. The first three of

these influence one other, and collectively they influence the fourth. A fifth set of

variables, teacher actions and student outcomes, completes the model for the collection of

data.

We are working with middle years teachers (Years 5 to 8) from volunteer clusters of

schools in the inner and outer suburbs of Melbourne and its semi-rural surroundings. These

three regions represent a spread of socio-economic student backgrounds and include both

government and Catholic sectors.

The TTML project has actively supported teachers in their teaching of the task types.

Meetings with teachers have provided professional development in using the task types

while enabling us to collect data on teachers experience of teaching them. Each of the

principal researchers has taken responsibility for one task type, moving from one school

cluster to another after one or two school terms. In this way, each cluster of teachers has

received professional development in each of the task types, including the creation or

sourcing of tasks matching the teachers curriculum.

Teacher development has focused on the nature of each of task types one to three, the

associated pedagogies, ways of addressing key constraints, and student assessment. (in

type four tasks, teacher use a combination of task types in an extended interdisciplinary

project.) For each task type we set the teachers a goal of using at least one task of the

relevant type in one lesson per week, with the goal that teachers would eventually generate

their own tasks. Regular cluster meetings and conferences combining the three clusters

allowed teachers the opportunity to share experiences of teaching the tasks.

Our intention has been to create optimal conditions for the successful implementation

of each task type by ensuring that teachers have access to high-quality task exemplars and

by supporting teachers on associated pedagogies. We also intend that the process of task

creation and use is self-sustaining. One way we hope to achieve this is through the

development of a website on which we have posted around 40 reports of lessons developed

according to task type, trialled by participating teachers, and incorporating their

experiences of teaching them. In addition, we are preparing to upload plans for whole units

of work, incorporating lesson plans and comments. The website is currently accessible to

the approximately 50 teachers involved in our project, but we plan to make this resource

more widely available on completion of our research.

Data Collection

The TTML project combines the interpretive analysis of teaching and teacher

development with quantitative data collection and analysis (see Knobel, 1999). Data have

been collected in several phases, reflecting teachers training in the task types and their

teaching of exemplary tasks, with each phase following a cycle of researcher input through

professional development, trialling by teachers including their responses and researchers

observations, review, further trialling, and so on. During these phases, which covered the

first half (18 months) of the projects duration, we also refined the instruments used for the

observation and interpretive analysis of teaching and student learning, including an

observation schedule and rubric for interpreting teacher actions.

In the following phase of more intensive data collection, we worked with teachers in

several schools to plan a whole unit of mathematics lessons comprising exemplars of the

four task types. We then observed each of the lessons, interviewed teachers before and

after lessons and observed students work. Additional data were collected from assessment

tasks following the completion of the unit of work.

The teachers were observed using a structured schedule to gather data on their

classroom actions. The focus of the observations was the type of tasks used, the pedagogies

associated with the task (especially questioning), the match between teachers intentions

and their actions, and any apparent constraints. Teachers were also interviewed before and

after observed lessons to review their intentions and actions, including perceived

constraints. Teachers not being observed reported on their task use indicating their

intentions, outcomes, constraints and advice to other teachers.

Both when teachers worked alone and when researchers observed their teaching of

tasks, data on the nature of the mathematics that students produced was gathered in the

form of selected work samples, photographs, interviews with students questioning their

mathematical thinking, and tests generated by teachers and/or researchers.

An innovation in the projects design is the inclusion of data from students. This

includes a survey of about 1000 middle year students at schools participating in TTML

4

from students participating in the units of work. These include a survey of the tasks they

enjoyed most and those they felt they learned most mathematics from, as well as an openended question about their ideal mathematics class.

Research Findings

Meetings with teachers and particularly our intensive data collection throughout units

of work at two schools have yielded rich data about student preferences and performance

in lessons developed using the task types, as well as the opportunities and constraints

experienced by teachers.

In the papers that follow, our colleagues elaborate on the rationale for each of the task

types on which our research focuses, the definitions they have developed for each of these

types and research findings relating to teachers experience of teaching them.

References

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals structures and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology,

84(3), 261-271. In Chick, H. L. & Vincent, J. L. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 29th International Conference

for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 1, 93-122.

Ainley, J., & Pratt, D. (2005). The Significance of task design in mathematics education: Examples from

proportional reasoning. In Chick, H.L. & Vincent, J. L. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 29th International

Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 1, 93122.

Boaler, J. (2003). Studying and capturing the complexity of practice: The case of dance of agency. In N. A.

Pateman, B. Dougherty, and J. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th International Conference for the

Psychology of Mathematics Education, 1, 316.

Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Christiansen, B., & Walther, G. (1986). Task and activity. In B. Christiansen, A. G. Howson, & M. Otte

(Eds.), Perspectives on mathematics education (pp. 243307). The Netherlands: Reidel.

Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organisation and management. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research

on teaching (pp. 392431). New York: Macmillan.

Gee,

J.

P.

(2004).

Learning

by

design:

Games

as

learning

machines.

http://labweb.education.wisc.edu/room130/jim.htm

Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1997). Instructional tasks, classroom discourse and student learning in second

grade arithmetic. American Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 393425.

Kaiser, G. (2006). The mathematical beliefs of teachers about applications and modelling results of an

empirical study. In J. Novotna, H. Moraova, M. Kratka and N. Stehlikova (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th

International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 3, 393-400.

Knobel, M. (1999). Everyday literacies: Students discourse and social practice. New York: Peter Lang.

Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking

and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational

Research Journal, 33(2), 455-488.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Walls, F. (2005). Challenging task-driven pedagogies of mathematics. In P. Clarkson, A. Downton, D.

Gronn, M. Horne, A. McDonough, R. Pierce & A. Roche (Eds.) Proceedings of the 28th Annual

Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, 751-758.

from a Middle Years Mathematics Project

Barbara Clarke

Monash University

<barbara.clarke@education.monash.edu.au>

As part of the Task Types for Mathematics Learning Project (TTML), teachers developed

and used a range of tasks which focused on tools, models or representations. Data were

collected on the ways in which middle years teachers described these tasks, their

preferences among particular tasks, the opportunities they saw them as providing, and the

constraints they observed during their use. There was general agreement that these tasks

form an important part of a balanced mathematics curriculum.

There have been a number of researchers who have attempted to classify mathematical

tasks. As part of the Quantitative Understanding: Amplifying Student Achievement and

Reasoning Project (QUASAR), Stein, Smith, Henningsen and Silver (2000) classified tasks

into four categories, which can be summarised as: Memorization involving reproducing

previously learned rules or facts; Procedures without connections, Procedures with

connections; and Doing mathematics. The task type which which is the basis of this paper

comes under the latter two categories.

The effective use of models, tools and representations is a key component of effective

mathematics teaching (Clarke & Clarke, 2003). Appropriate models and representations, in

the hands of capable teachers, support children's conceptual development and can build

skills. What tasks do teachers use to introduce and implement these tools, models and

representations? The Task Types for Mathematics Learning (TTML) project included such

explicit tasks (referred to as Type 1 by project participants). A key focus in this research is

to examine the opportunities and constraints experienced by teachers when using the

various task types. It would appear that there are powerful constraints operating which

discourage their use, because it appears that in many Australian classes the tasks used are

generally routine and unlikely to lead to successful learning (see Hollingsworth, Lokan, &

McCrae, 2003). Such explicit tasks are associated with good traditional mathematics

teaching (see Watson & Mason, 1998), but their use is not always evident in the regular

classroom. The term explicit is used here to emphasise that the mathematics was made

explicit in the use of the task, not to imply that the teacher was telling the student what to

do, without any student decision making.

In describing these tasks, we are not referring to exercises but to explicitly focused

experiences that engage children in developing and consolidating mathematical

understanding. An example is a teacher who uses a fraction wall to provide a linear model

of fractions, and poses tasks that require students to compare fractions, to determine

equivalences, and to solve fractional equations. The fraction wall simplifies the

mathematical complexity of the concept by providing a tangible and clear model of

fractions that can be otherwise abstract.

In the initial TTML professional development, teachers were provided with the

following definition of these types of tasks:

The teacher commences with an important mathematical idea, and proposes tasks which involve

models or representations or tools, which help students to understand the mathematics. There is no

attempt to link mathematics to its practical applications. For example, the use of a fraction wall in a

chance game can assist in developing an understanding of equivalence, improper fractions, and

simple operations with fractions.

Following student work on the task, the teacher leads a discussion on the mathematics which has

emerged from the task, and seeks to draw out commonalities and generalisations.

After developing, adapting and using explicit tasks, the teachers filled out a survey

with a series of open prompts (n = 31) focusing on the specific task type. There were three

groups of teachers with varying experience with other types of tasks in the context of the

project when the survey was completed. However, there was little difference between these

groups in the patterns of responses, except that they seemed to provide more extensive

responses and included more comparison references when they had experienced the use of

other tasks types. This is not surprising, as they were then in a position to note appropriate

contrasts. The results from this survey are presented in the following sections.

The first survey prompt was If you were explaining to a group of teachers about how

to use tasks of this type, how would you describe this type of task?

The importance of the model and the explicit focus on the mathematics were the most

common components of teachers responses. The linking of the model or tool explicitly

and directly to the mathematical concept was highlighted. Sample responses included:

Using Models/tools representations to explicitly focus on a particular mathematical idea or concept.

Often takes the form of teachers introducing a mathematics idea and students play a game or

complete an activity. Follow up discussion on understanding/learning with students.

The use of a model or representation to assist student understanding of a particular mathematical

concept to be used as a reference for further student work on the concept.

These teachers had been provided with some exemplars of tasks as well as worked in

school- and cluster-based teams to develop and trial tasks. There responses were consistent

with the intentions of the researchers.

In the survey, teachers were asked of the tasks of this type that you have tried in your

class this year, which worked best? They were then asked to list two more of the best

tasks.

Not only did no particular task emerge as the most popular, but the most striking

feature of the responses was the diversity of tasks that were valued, with 17 different tasks

identified as best across the 31 teachers. The Chocolate Fraction task (Clarke, 2006) where

the sharing of chocolate represents both an engaging context and a model for the

development of the concept of fractions as division was identified by a number of teachers

in their best three.

The reasons that the teachers gave for selecting the Chocolate Fraction task included:

Gave students something they could see. They were interested in the chocolate so it remains in most

of their minds.

was so effective in engaging the children and representing fractions as division.

The teachers were teaching in the middle years (Years 5 8, with student ages from

around 10 to 14), with the vast majority in upper primary. An important curriculum focus

in these years is fractions and decimals, and the majority of the best explicit tasks focused

7

on childrens development in these areas. This would seem to be due in part to curriculum

importance but also to the nature of the content and the availability of effective models and

tools. Of the 81 nominations by the teachers as their top 3, 51 were focused directly on

learning in Number. This was despite the fact that in later professional development an

attempt was made to present and encourage teachers to try explicit tasks in other content

areas. Teachers tended to trial and identify tasks that they had experienced during project

meetings or developed as a team within the school.

There was limited justification for the teachers preferences but the key themes

appeared to be the engagement of the children followed by the importance of the

model/tool/ representation in enabling mathematics learning.

The following quote was from a teacher responding to why a specific task was

successful:

Concept that hasnt been introduced was made explicit through the use of this model. Students

could see clearly what maths happens when you divide/multiply by a number larger/smaller than

one.

To gain insights into the opportunities and advantages of the specific task type, the

prompt was What do you see as the advantages of using this task type in your teaching?

The most common feature in the teachers responses was the value of these tasks for

developing student understanding. There were also many who commented on the

engagement of students both in the sense of participation but also in the way the model

(sometimes referred to as visual or hands-on) allows engagement with the

mathematics.

Increasingly during the phase of the project where the different task types were trialled,

the discussion of the teachers involved the role of different types of tasks and the value of a

range in their planning including for the range of students. The following quotes about the

advantages of explicit tasks were from teachers who had trialled open-ended (see Sullivan

in this volume), context-based (see Clarke and Roche in this volume) and explicit tasks:

Yes as a starter to teach new maths that then can progress to Task type 3 [open-ended].

In particular areas of maths eg- using operations-using this task allows students to learn the maths

skills required before moving into applying it in a variety of contexts.

It can support the concrete understanding of a maths concept for students for whom more abstract

mathematical understanding may not develop as readily.

The following prompt was included to provide insights into the constraints that

teachers identified: What makes teaching using this task type difficult? What are the

challenges in using this type of task?

The difficulties that appear to be related directly to the tasks types include the difficulty

in identification of explicit tasks within particular content area (e.g., chance and data) and

the time required to prepare the materials.

The following are representative of the range of responses and issues:

Sometimes finding the task. For me sometimes deciding which task is actually a type 1 task.

Finding the resource and preparing it for use with a grade can be difficult ie time needed to copy,

laminate, cut, etc.

Ensuring each student has sufficient background knowledge and skills. At times I found it difficult

to make the task relevant to the maths program.

Understanding the model/representation is most effective when there is a purpose, ie our

opportunity to apply their understanding of the model in a meaningful context. Also, particular

maths concepts are easier to find models for.

Sometimes modifying for lower students.

Conclusion

In the trialling phase of this project, there was a number of issues that arose in the

teaching of explicit tasks. The teacher quotes and summary comments above provide some

insights into some those issues. They can be summarised as follows:

While these tasks are not contextualised, there is sometimes a hook that helps to

engage the students. The chocolate fraction task is an example of this.

Some content areas, particularly Number, seem to provide more opportunity for

successful explicit tasks.

Extensive exposition is not necessarily required. The provision of the model or

representation can enable the students to generate the mathematical ideas and

justification.

The model, representation or tool needs to be linked closely to the mathematical

concept begin developed.

The mathematical focus is pivotal and it seems that teachers might be less willing

to deviate from the intent than with contextualized tasks.

The teachers in this project were able to articulate the purpose, opportunities and

constraints of explicit tasks. Such tasks are an important component of curriculum, but

teaching them well is not simple. However, as one of the teachers pointed out, it is

important to be reminded why we need to include them.

References

Clarke, D. M. (2006). Fractions as division: The forgotten notion? Australian Primary Mathematics

Classroom, 11(3), 4-10.

Clarke, D. M., & Clarke, B. A. (2004). Mathematics teaching in Grades K-2: Painting a picture of

challenging, supportive, and effective classrooms. In R. N. Rubenstein & G. W. Bright (Eds.),

Perspectives on the teaching of mathematics (66th Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of

Mathematics, pp. 67-81). Reston, VA: NCTM.

Hollingsworth, H., Lokan, J., & McCrae, B. (2003). Teaching mathematics in Australia: Results from the

TIMSS video study (TIMSS Australia Monograph No. 5). Camberwell, Victoria: Australian Council for

Educational Research.

Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A., & Silver, E. A. (2000). Implementing Standards-based

mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development. New York, NY: Teachers College

Press.

Watson, A., & Mason, J. (1998). Questions and prompts for mathematical thinking. Derby, UK: Association

of Teachers of Mathematics.

by Tasks Built Around Real Contexts

Doug Clarke

Anne Roche

<doug.clarke@acu.edu.au>

<anne.roche@acu.edu.au>

Following professional learning sessions which focused on developing and using tasks

in middle years classrooms which began with "real" contexts, teachers trialled such tasks

in their classes, and then completed a survey, the results of which are reported here.

Teachers were able to articulate the features of such tasks, see potential benefits, and

articulate opportunities and constraints in their use. Secondary teachers saw greater

constraints in using such tasks than did primary teachers.

Introduction

There is a strong consensus in the research literature that the nature of student learning

is determined by the type of task and the way it is used (Kilpatrick, Swafford, & Findell,

2001). Instructional tasks and classroom discourse moderate the relationship between

teaching and learning (Hiebert & Wearne, 1997, p. 420).

When teachers pose higher order tasks, students give longer responses and demonstrate

higher levels of performance on mathematical assessments (Hiebert & Wearne, 1997). The

greatest gains on performance assessments, including questions that required high levels of

mathematical thinking and reasoning, are related to the use of instructional tasks that

engage students in doing mathematics or using procedures with connection to meaning

(Stein & Lane, 1996, p. 50).

The provision of meaningful and challenging mathematical tasks remains an issue in

middle years mathematics in Australia. For example, the Executive Summary of Beyond

the Middle (Luke et al., 2003), a report commissioned by the Australian Commonwealth

Department of Education, Science and Training, and involving a literature review, a

curriculum/policy mapping exercise, and system, school and classroom visits, claimed:

There needs to be a more systematic emphasis on intellectual demand and student engagement in

mainstream pedagogy. This will require a much stronger emphasis on quality and diversity of

pedagogy, on the spread of mainstreaming of approaches to teaching and learning that stress higher

order thinking and critical literacy, greater depth of knowledge and understanding and increases in

overall intellectual demand and expectations of middle years students. (p. 5)

When using Type 2 tasks, teachers situate mathematics within a contextualised

practical problem where the motive is explicitly mathematics. This task type has a

particular mathematical focus as the starting point and the context exemplifies this. The

context serves the twin purposes of showing how mathematics is used to make sense of the

world and motivating students to solve the task. It is intended that the context provide a

motivation for what follows and dictates the mathematical decisions that the students make

in finding a solution. Although the contexts are in some cases contrived, it is important to

distinguish Type 2 tasks from word problems (e.g., Fennema, Franke, Carpenter & Carey,

1993), which are only contextualised in a very basic way.

Hodge, Visnovska, Zhao, and Cobb (2007) studied the use of a range of contextualised

tasks with seventh-grade students in the United States, with a focus on the extent to which

10

mathematical competence. Most tasks involved comparing two data sets in order to make a

decision or judgement (e.g., deciding whether the installation of airbags in cars impacts on

car safety, exploring the impact of a treatment program for AIDS patients). During the

design experiments, the authors found that issues, which were of a personal or societal

relevance, were the most effective in engaging students. They attributed this to

adolescents growing interest in their place in society and their sense of power in affecting

[sic] change on society and their immediate community (p. 398).

Peter-Koop (2004) summarised many of the difficulties which students face when

solving context-based problems, including comprehension of the text, and the

identification of the mathematical core of the problem. We need to be careful about the use

of problems which have little in common with those faced in life, Maier (1991) describing

them as school problems coated with a thin veneer of real world associations.

Boaler (1993) was also critical of these kinds of problems, particularly those extracted

from the adult world (e.g., wage slips and household bills) with an assumption that

students could identify with these. She also criticised the misconception held by some that

mathematics in an everyday context is easier than its abstract equivalent (p. 13). Boaler

also noted that one difficulty in creating perceptions of reality occurs when students are

required to engage partly as though a task were real while simultaneously ignoring factors

that would be pertinent in the real life version of the task (p. 14).

A number of teachers in the TTML project used what we have come to call the

Signpost Task. In using the task, the teacher asked students whether, during family travels,

they had ever seen a sign at lookouts or at other tourist places which showed how far and

in which direction a number of key places were from their current location.

The teacher then explained that todays lesson would involve the students working, in

pairs, on trying to find out the location of the signpost. A number of teachers reported that

several students needed what Sullivan, Mousley, and Zevenbergen (2004) termed enabling

promptsappropriate variations on the task or suggestions to students, which might help

those who are having trouble making a start. One helpful enabling prompt was to suggest

11

to students that they pick a city named on the sign and find out how far on the map it

would be from the signs location and therefore which mystery city might contain this

signpost.

A number of writers (e.g., Brown & Walter, 1993) have stressed the importance of

problem posing by students. Several teachers extended the work on the task, by

encouraging students in groups to create their own signposts with cities of their own

choice, and then to pose their problems to another group. Incidentally, the photograph

above was taken inside Auckland International Airport in New Zealand.

Teachers were encouraged to use the tasks provided by the project team as models for

developing their own tasks. The two below were rated most highly by teachers:

Maps for the commander (Downton, Knight, Clarke, & Lewis, 2006). Here, students

are presented with two views drawn by spies of a city surrounded by a circular wallone

drawing from the West, one from the South. The students are challenged to draw the view,

which the third (missing) spy would have drawn from the North-east.

Land proportions. Students are presented with a copy of a real email sent to the authors

by a person seeking some help. The letter read as follows: If, on paper, a block of land is

2 cm x 5.8 cm, and the overall dimensions are 4768 square metres, how do I work out the

actual length and width of the block?

Teachers were asked to describe Type 2 tasks as they would if they were explaining

them to another teacher. The prompt was If you were explaining to a group of teachers

about to use tasks of this type, how would you describe this type of task? Their

explanations included the following:

_ A mathematical problem embedded in a real situation.

_ Questions which allow/require investigation through use of materials data

gathering, testing and calculation. The tasks are based in authenticity.

_ The mathematical problem is contextualised, but with an explicit maths focus.

_ Contextualised maths investigations with explicit mathematical focus.

_ Application tasks involving situate mathematics within a contextualised practical

problem where the focus is explicitly mathematics.

After at least one school term of trialling a range of Type 2 tasks, teachers were asked

to list advantages of using this task type in your teaching. Typical comments were:

_ More hands on.

_ Some were good for the student who struggles with mathematics.

_ The mathematical skills and strategies are made purposeful and meaningful by

being situated in a real world context.

_ Increases the students ability to think.

_ Allows the students to draw on a variety of understandings and topics engaging

and relevant to what they are doing.

_ Engages advanced students. Combines knowledge and skills, e.g., a task may need

measurement, calculation, logic.

_ Each task can be taken in various directions by the students. There are different

ways to solve the puzzle and are very engaging.

Teachers were also asked, What makes teaching this task type difficult. In the

comments below, support students refers to those students in the classes in which

students of lower ability were grouped. Typical responses were the following:

12

_

_

Some of the tasks were too challenging for support students and too long!

The different learning needs and abilities of the students; at times some students

arrived at their conclusions more quickly then others.

_ Students who are less confident have very little idea of where to start if left to their

own devices rather than assisted. These tasks can compound their negative feelings

about themselves and maths.

_ Not all the real situations are relevant to middle years students and may not fit

neatly into the existing curriculum.

_ You need to do some preparation with the students. Students are more interested in

the answer than the process.

It is worth noting that teachers in secondary schools found using the Type 2 tasks more

challenging to use generally than did those in primary schools.

Boaler (1993) provides an insight into the potential transfer of mathematical

understanding when she notes that it also seems likely that an activity which engages a

student and enables her to attain some personal meaning will enhance transfer to the extent

that it allows deeper understanding of the mathematics involved (p. 15). She notes that

school mathematics remains school mathematics for students when they are not

encouraged to analyse mathematical situations and understand which aspects are central

(p. 17).

References

Boaler, J. (1993). The role of contexts in the mathematics classroom: Do they make mathematics more

real? For the Learning of Mathematics, 13(2), 12-17.

Brown, S. I., & Walter, M. I. (1993). Problem posing: Reflections and applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Downton, A., Knight, R., Clarke, D., & Lewis, G. (2006). Mathematics assessment for learning: Rich tasks

and work samples. Melbourne: Mathematics Teaching and Learning Centre, Australian Catholic

University.

Fennema, E., Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., & Carey, D. A. (1993). Using childrens mathematical

knowledge in instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 555-583.

Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1997). Instructional tasks, classroom discourse and student learning in second

grade arithmetic. American Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 393425.

Hodge, Visnovska, Zhao & Cobb (2007). In J. Watson & K. Beswick (Eds.), Mathematics: Essential

research, essential practice (Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the Mathematics Education

Research Group of Australasia, Vol. 1, pp. 392-401). Adelaide: MERGA.

Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Luke, A., Elkin, J, Weir, K., Land, R., Carrington, V., Dole, S., Pendergast, D., Kapitzke, C., van

Kraayenoord, C., McIntosh, A., Mayer, D., Bahr, M., Hunter, L., Chadbourne, R., Bean, T., Alvermann,

D., & Stevens, L. (2003). Beyond the middle executive summary. St Lucia, Queensland, University of

Queensland.

Maier, E. (1991). Folk mathematics. In M. Harris (Ed.), School, mathematics and work (pp. 62-66). London:

Palmer Press.

Peter-Koop, A. (2004). Fermi problems in primary mathematics classrooms: Pupils interactive modelling

processes. In I. Putt, R. Farragher, & M. McLean (Eds.), Mathematics education for the third millenium:

Towards 2010 (Proceedings of the 27th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group

of Australasia, pp. 454-461). Townsville, Queensland: MERGA.

Stein, M. K., & Lane, S. (1996). Instructional tasks and the development of student capacity to think and

reason: An analysis of the relationship between teaching and learning in a reform mathematics project.

Educational Research and Evaluation, 2(1), 50-80.

Sullivan, P., Mousley, J., & Zevenbergen, R. (2004). Describing elements of mathematics lessons that

accommodate diversity in student background. In M. Johnsen Joines & A. Fuglestad (Eds.) Proceedings

of the 28th annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education

(pp. 257-265). Bergen: PME.

13

When Using Content-specific Open-ended tasks

Peter Sullivan

Monash University

<peter.sullivan@education.monash.edu.au>

After teacher learning sessions on open-ended tasks, teachers trialed such tasks in their

classes, and then completed a survey, the results of which are reported here. It seems that

the teachers collectively could adequately define open-ended tasks, could give illustrative

examples, and could articulate both opportunities and constraints. This knowledge allows

teachers to plan to take advantage of opportunities and to minimise the constraints.

An assumption underlying each of the three tasks types in the Task Types and

Mathematics Learning (TTML) project is that the nature of teaching and what students learn

is defined largely by the tasks that form the basis of their actions. In this case, we argue that

working on open-ended tasks (type 3 in our project) can support mathematics learning by

fostering operations such as investigating, creating, problematising, communicating,

generalising, and coming to understand procedures.

There is substantial support for this assumption. Examples of researchers who have

argued that tasks or problems that have many possible solutions contribute to mathematics

learning include those working on problem fields (e.g., Pehkonen, 1997), and the open

approach (e.g., Nohda & Emori, 1997). It has been suggested that opening up tasks can

encourage pupils to investigate, make decisions, generalise, seek patterns and connections,

communicate, discuss, and identify alternatives (Sullivan, 1999).

Specific studies that support use of open-ended tasks include Stein and Lane (1996) who

noted that student performance gains were greater when tasks were both set up and

implemented to encourage use of multiple solution strategies, multiple representation and

explanations (p. 50). Likewise, Boaler (2002) compared the outcomes from working on

open-ended tasks in two schools. In one school, the teachers based their teaching on openended tasks and in the other traditional text-based approaches were used. After working on

an open, project based mathematics curriculum (p. 246) in mixed ability groups, the

relationship between social class and achievement was much weaker after three years,

whereas the correlation between social class and achievement was still high in the school

where teachers used traditional approaches. Further, the students in the school adopting

open-ended approaches attained significantly higher grades on a range of assessments,

including the national examination (p. 246).

Two aspects of our project are of interest here. First, we wanted to know what teachers

took from our professional learning sessions and how they interpreted our input. Second, we

were interested in what they learned from classroom trials of exemplars of the tasks.

14

The Content-specific Open-ended Tasks that are the Focus of our Project

In addition to the openness described above, type 3 tasks are also content-specific in that

they address the type of mathematical topics that form the basis of textbooks and the

conventional mathematics curriculum. Teachers can include these as part of their teaching

without jeopardising students performance on subsequent internal or external mathematics

assessments. The definition that we used with our project teachers was:

Content specific open-ended tasks have multiple possible answers, they prompt insights into specific

mathematics through students discussing the range of possible answers, An example is:

A group of 7 people went fishing. The mean number of fish caught was 7, the median was 6 and

the mode was 5. How many fish might each of the people have caught?

Such tasks allow unambiguous focus on specific aspects of mathematics while still allowing

opportunities for creativity and active decision making by students with the advantage that one task

can be applicable to wide levels of understanding.

The project is/has been exploring the nature of the learning based on such open-ended

tasks, the opportunities that such tasks offer to students, and the constraints that the tasks

create for teachers. After the teachers had worked with the respective task types, they

completed a survey which asked them questions on these issues. Their unstructured

responses were inspected, categorised, and summarised, and are reported in the following.

We were interested to determine how the teachers interpreted the experiences provided

by their participation in the project. On a survey, completed after working with type 3 tasks,

the teachers were asked:

If you were explaining to a group of teachers about to use tasks of this type, how would you describe

this type of task?

Nearly all of the teacher responses referred to the possibility of multiple answers using

terms such as multiple answers-multiple methods, there are a numbers of strategies for

finding an answer, not only one answer and explore a variety of outcomes.

Many responses also referred to the ways the tasks can be suitable for students of

differing readiness, such as allow students to work at their own level, use strategies at

their own level of understanding, and access to a range of ability levels.

Various teachers also commented on the emphasis that might be placed on student

responses such as (a need to) focus on sharing strategies, making generalisations and

seeing patterns, and translating insights into mathematical expressions.

In other words, many teachers were able to restate to us the purposes and operation of

the tasks in the language and form that we had suggested.

In the survey, the teachers were asked of the tasks of this type that you have tried in

your class this year, which worked best. They were also invited to describe the next two

best tasks. Not only did no particular tasks emerge as more popular, but the most striking

feature of the responses was the diversity of tasks that were valued. Examples of tasks that

were mentioned by more than one teacher were:

A closed rectangular box is tied up with 1 metre of ribbon. If the bow takes 30 cm of ribbon, what

might be the dimensions of the box?

Using the map on google earth, plan a walk around the school that is 4 km long.

What might be the missing numbers? _ _ 8 _ = _ _ 0

15

These three tasks are appropriate exemplars of this type in that there is a variety of

possible responses to each, the range of responses can be interrogated by students and

teachers, the students have to make choices in finding one or more solutions, and the

problems are not solved by the application of a procedure.

There were also examples such as the following suggested:

How much water is wasted by the school drinking taps over a year?

This has some characteristics of open-ended tasks in that the students have to make

active decisions on what is important and how to collect data, and there would be sense of

personal ownership. The task also has many characteristics of type 2 tasks (see D. Clarke,

this volume) in that it addresses a practical context. The task is also similar to

interdisciplinary tasks, which is our fourth type.

The teachers responses indicate that their suggestions of open-ended tasks are

compatible with the material they had been presented with in teacher learning sessions.

In our teacher learning sessions we have emphasised the following potential advantages

of using open-ended tasks: there is considerable choice in relation to strategies and solution

types; generalised responses and patterns can be found; there are opportunities for class

discussion about the range of approaches used; and the range of solutions found can lead to

an appreciation of their variety and relative efficiencies. Teachers were asked:

What do you see as the advantages of using this task type in your teaching?

The most common responses related to the choices that students make about their

approach to tasks, such as how various students go about solving maths problems, every

student has a chance to solve it in their own way.

Many responses related to the nature of the students thinking such as encourages

students to broaden their thinking, creativity, opens up possibilities, students think

more deeply, and on a slightly different note encourages students to persist.

Teachers also commented on the ways the tasks can be accessed by all students such as

all achieve some success, can cater for range of abilities, and work at their own level.

Having used such tasks in the classrooms, these responses suggest not only compatibility

with the perspectives that we presented to them, but also further interpretations that were

derived from practice, with emphasis on the idiosyncratic ways that students respond, and

teachers intention to support students individually.

In the teacher learning sessions we discussed the potential constraints posed by such

tasks, especially the resistance that some students have to taking the risks that such tasks

present (see Desforges & Cockburn, 1987). In the survey, the teachers were asked

What makes teaching using this task type difficult? What are challenges in using this type of task?

The most common response related to the issue we had addressed, that is that some

students prefer more closed tasks. Teachers comments included some students are not risk

takers, challenge for the students who want to go straight to an answer, requires

thinking, and the hard thinking and little direction can be confronting for some kids.

Other aspects of students response that may be connected to their unfamiliarity of such

tasks were students who dont want to put in any effort, some find difficulty finding an

entry point, their need for confidence and some students dont know where to start.

Some teachers clearly saw such tasks as more difficult noting that some students might

16

experience difficulties such as limited mathematical knowledge, and not all students have

the right level of learning.

There were pedagogical aspects mentioned such as not always sure what maths will

come out of it, correcting the different solutions, holding back on explanations, and

being ready for what arises.

There were also planning considerations mentioned such as finding the tasks and

needs additional resources.

These responses clearly arise from reflection by teachers on the use of such tasks in their

own classrooms. It is possible that the constraints might act as a deterrent to the use of such

tasks. A significant aspect of our project is to explore the obstacles these constraints

represent and to develop ways of working with our teachers to overcome them.

Conclusion

After participating in teacher learning sessions on this task type, on a survey teachers

gave adequate definitions and useful examples, could identify the advantages of the tasks,

and articulated some constraints associated with their use. While it is possible that their

responses were merely reproducing what had been said to them, their comments did seem to

be derived from their practice. The hypothetical definitions and recommendations about

implementation aligned with their experience, and it seems that teachers are both ready to

take advantage of opportunities, and aware of the potential constraints they may experience.

References

Boaler, J. (2002). Experiencing school mathematics: Traditional and reform approaches to teaching and their

impact on student learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Desforges, C., & Cockburn, A. (1987). Understanding the mathematics teacher: A study of practice in first

schools. London: The Falmer Press.

Nohda, N., & Emori, H. (1997). Communication and negotiation through open approach method. In E.

Pehkonen (Ed.), Use of open-ended problems in mathematics classrooms (pp. 6372). Department of

Teacher Education, University of Helsinki.

Pehkonen, E. (1997). Use of problem fields as a method for educational change. In E. Pehkonen (Ed.) Use of

open-ended problems in mathematics classrooms (pp. 7384). Department of Teacher Education,

University of Helsinki.

Stein, M. K., & Lane, S. (1996). Instructional tasks and the development of student capacity to think and

reason and analysis of the relationship between teaching and learning in a reform mathematics project.

Educational Research and Evaluation, 2(1), 5080.

Sullivan, P. (1999). Seeking a rationale for particular classroom tasks and activities. In J. M. Truran & K. N.

Truran (Eds.) Making the difference. Proceedings of the 21st annual conference of the Mathematics

Educational Research Group of Australasia (pp.15-29). Adelaide.

17

- National Viewpoint - NikersonUploaded byWilliam Allan Kritsonis, PhD
- reflectionalgUploaded byapi-246119961
- observation 3Uploaded byapi-300746636
- Stirring the Head, Heart and SoulUploaded bynukifahrur
- fs4episode3a-161230011114.pdfUploaded byJolina Mae Natuel
- 19Uploaded bychristina wardani
- curriclumtypes-110225065422-phpapp01-130901064106-phpapp01Uploaded byJONRY GUMINTAD HELAMON
- AprilUploaded byninieynique
- chapter 1Uploaded byapi-231516879
- Nancy Sánchez Group 18Uploaded by16139280
- TASK 1 (March 29)Uploaded byLyDia 리디아
- Primary Mathematics Teaching Theory and PracticeUploaded byGeorgiana Kokona
- atm8.pdfUploaded byAzrul Fazwan
- Curriculum development-part 1.docUploaded byTony Cabrestante
- telling my storyUploaded byapi-364113256
- module 6 chapter 1Uploaded byYu Pasipiko
- Kk _ Edu3083 Tesl 1 n 2Uploaded byMohamad Nordin Khairuddin
- Impact of Curriculum EvaluationUploaded byAnonymous Df2gbAA6jC
- cv-yasmin ibrahimUploaded byapi-316704749
- Meaning o f CurriculumUploaded bycherry adolfo
- ADEC Emirates Private School 2015 2016Uploaded byEdarabia.com
- TeacherUploaded byMichael Nghia
- 828-1571-3-PB.pdfUploaded bychristie
- teacher interviewUploaded byapi-253187192
- Adding Big NumbersUploaded byDiana Mariela Martinez Yepez
- Parent Letter Student ReportingUploaded bymnnuseeb
- 2019 rhonda schmidt resumeUploaded byapi-462862402
- year 7 expectationUploaded byapi-308695177
- KHDA Gems Our Own Indian School 2015 2016Uploaded byEdarabia.com
- ued 496 witham kimberly rationale and reflection content interdisciplinaryUploaded byapi-300085736

- Five Year Plan Wage PolicyUploaded byWencesl Khyllep
- Introduction to consumer awarenessUploaded byNishant Sharma
- verb2 (2)Uploaded byapi-278972365
- Conducting Action ResearchUploaded byAnthony Jan Cabatic
- probability lessonUploaded byapi-281170712
- Judge, WQ - Echoes From the OrientUploaded byXangot
- DICA Manual Hardware ExpsUploaded byanandbabugopathoti
- Kurt+Spellmeyer-Arts+of+Living_+Reinventing+the+Humanities+for+the+Twenty-First+Century+(2003).pdfUploaded bysumitkumar.dey
- Khrebtan-Hörhager_SPCM-436-Conflict-Management-and-Communication-syllabusUploaded byChaucer19
- IGCSE Year 8Uploaded byBaskar Thangaraj
- Companion March 2014 Low Res(1)Uploaded bylybrakiss
- Skaggs Ethics Spring 2012Uploaded bykjb05284456
- John G. Gearhart MD FACS, Richard C. Rink MD, Pierre D. E. Mouriquand MD FRCS(Eng)-Pediatric Urology, Second Edition (2009)Uploaded byNim eni
- ed3503-activity plan for refugee and outUploaded byapi-371835039
- Ap08 Psychology q2Uploaded byRiddhi Sinha
- 2Uploaded byAdrian Fetalver
- Morgan Lewis Answer on Preliminary InjuncttionUploaded byxf14ae
- English K-6 Scope and Sequence (Based on Acara)Uploaded byS TANCRED
- 03 Creativity InnovationUploaded byCloude HolLowen
- curriculum vitae 2018Uploaded byapi-435322015
- Unit 21 - APR 2015 HRM Perry.docxUploaded bypujavikasmathur
- Ilearn Usage Guideline1Uploaded byMujahidahFaqihah
- Ruth BenedictUploaded byjhanelle
- ASiT Conference Cardiff 2012 - Abstract BookUploaded byAssociation of Surgeons in Training
- 5 hw-problem solving- choice boardUploaded byapi-262576271
- Food in Montgomery County Public SchoolsUploaded byParents' Coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland
- Icon BanglalinkUploaded bysurajitbijoy
- Belizario VicenteUploaded byRoshanDavid
- Australian Kodaly Bulletin 2006Uploaded byjackmcfrenzie
- andrea hori resume updated 2017Uploaded byapi-381861510